It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Thursday, October 10, 2024
Failed waste policy: We burn more and recycle less than we think
In the sea of environmental problems over which we have little control, recycling has always been an area where each of us can do something positive. But what if policy gets in the way?
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
image:
More and more of our residual waste is incinerated, as much as 65 per cent of it goes up in smoke. PhD candidate Kim Rainer Mattson believes much of this can be recovered and recycled.
Norwegians throw away and burn increasing amounts of waste that could easily be recycled, in spite of a waste policy that envisions a different result.
Norway’s waste policy aims to ensure the transition to an economy that helps stop the loss of natural habitat and significantly reduces environmental emissions. The goals for a circular economy of this nature have been established in accordance with EU policy and are based on government statistics compiled by the Norwegian Environment Agency and Statistics Norway (SSB).
Plans that don’t work
Researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) have now taken a critical look at Norway’s waste policy over the past few decades. Their analysis shows that 65 per cent of all collected and processed waste is incinerated, which is an increase from 49 per cent in 2009. The research shows that there are major gaps in the information being collected by the Norwegian Environment Agency and Statistics Norway. In some years, we have actually recycled 40 per cent less than what the authorities have reported.
“Inadequate data, imprecise measurement methods and a lack of transparency from the recycling companies are weakening the platform of knowledge on which the waste policy is founded. This is why we have ended up with plans that don’t work,” says Kim Rainer Mattson.
He is a PhD candidate at the Department of Energy and Process Engineering at NTNU and one of the authors behind the new study, along with Professor Helge Brattebø and Associate Professor Johan Berg Pettersen.
Excessively positive estimates
This is the first time researchers have tracked the afterlife of our waste, all the way from when it is collected, delivered and processed, to when it ends up as incinerated particles in the atmosphere, buried mass in landfills, as soil, compost, fertiliser, or as materials in new products.
Among other things, the study shows that private individuals, politicians and decision-makers receive excessively positive figures from the authorities on the results of the system of waste collection, recycling and recovery. In the years 2009 and 2019, Statistics Norway reported a recycling rate of 44 and 41 per cent, respectively. That is significantly higher than the figures from NTNU, which show a recycling rate of 28 and 29 per cent for the same years.
Incineration instead of recycling
“All of this gives cause for concern because it creates a false impression that we are on the right track. In reality, we are helping to develop an incineration economy, instead of working purposefully towards the ambitious goal of transitioning to a circular economy,” says Kim Rainer Mattson.
In 2009, 49 per cent of all collected and processed waste was incinerated. Ten years later, this had increased to 65 per cent.
“It is clear that even though the defined goal is to increase circularity in society, we are still completely reliant on processing waste by incinerating it,” says the researcher.
Advice for better waste policy
Mattson and his colleagues demonstrate what is needed to move Norway towards the goals set by the EU. They propose as many as 18 more precise methods of measurement so that the authorities can manage waste streams more efficiently.
Much of the incinerated waste comes from the sorting category called residual waste. Almost 70 per cent of residual waste consists of materials that could have been sorted and processed in a more environmentally friendly way. On average, 10 per cent of the waste that is actually sorted at source is incorrectly sorted. Plastic, cardboard, paper and electronic waste pose major challenges. People don’t sort things correctly and a lot of resources are lost. When other options are more demanding, costly and uncertain, incineration becomes the easiest and cheapest solution.
Sending waste to the other side of the planet and both thinking that we are solving a problem and reporting it as circular economy statistics is not good.
The goal: reduced resource consumption
The goal of Norway’s waste policy is to move away from an environmentally harmful, linear, throwaway economy and into a circular economy where we consume far fewer natural resources.
Every year, Statistics Norway and the Norwegian Environment Agency report on the status, and their official waste statistics show how well the policy, plans, and practices are working. How much we recycle indicates our progress towards a circular economy, and household waste in particular receives a lot of attention.
PhD candidate Mattson has worked in the waste industry for five years. He believes it is good that we have a system for collecting figures and data as it gives us a good overview of the development taking place.
“But we also need to make sure we are measuring things in a meaningful way. The data must reflect what actually happens after our waste is delivered to the waste processing plant,” says Mattson.
The figures do not capture losses
Plastic is a composite material and one of the most challenging types of waste, resulting in little being recycled and recovered. When they look at the entire processing chain, the researchers see significant losses.
“When Statistics Norway reports that we recycle 40 per cent of plastic waste, that is not the final figure of how much has actually been recycled. It is just an indication of the information they have, which states that 40 per cent of it has been sent for recycling,” says Mattson.
Much we don’t know
“The figures are overestimated. They do not take into account that losses occur further along in the processes,” says the NTNU researcher.
He emphasises that it is not the authorities who are at fault. They get their figures from the waste processing companies, which report what they collect and send for recycling. But they too don’t necessarily know what happens to the waste after they have sent it further down the processing chain.
Sorted, incinerated, buried
According to the NTNU analysis, one of the problems is that the recycling companies are not very transparent. We cannot be sure that everything that is sorted for recycling is actually recycled. Some types of waste are complicated and demanding.
“We lack an overview of what actually happens to the waste we sort in Norway that is sent elsewhere for processing,” says Mattson.
Mapping waste streams
The researchers have scrutinised Norwegian waste statistics, various databases, scientific publications and studies on how the waste is processed. They have also tracked the stream of electrical waste, cardboard, paper and plastic from Norway to processing facilities in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. They have also spoken with manufacturers and importers who have been given additional responsibility for their products throughout their entire lifecycle.
“For example, there are few recycling companies and industrial facilities interested in sharing data from their plants,” says Mattson, who nonetheless believes that their models effectively illustrate what happens in all phases of the waste’s afterlife.
Emissions abroad are not counted
Statistics Norway uses ‘recycling rate’ as an indicator of how close we are to achieving a circular economy, but the researchers believe this indicator is not very useful in the design of waste policies. It doesn’t take into account energy consumption during processing, the final products we end up with, or what we replace in terms of virgin materials.
The researchers believe that the Norwegian Environment Agency’s calculations of greenhouse gas emissions from the waste system are an imprecise measurement.
“The Agency reports emissions related to waste management in Norway and does not take into account emissions that occur outside the country’s borders,” explains Kim Rainer Mattson.
Incinerating sorted plastic abroad
For example, all plastic waste that is sent for recycling is exported out of Norway. According to the report ‘PlasticTheFacts’, Norway ranks number 1 when it comes to plastic recycling in Europe. In 2020, 29.5 million tonnes of plastic waste were collected in the EU, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. According to Green Dot Norway, just over a third of this was sent for material recycling, almost half was incinerated, and the rest was buried in landfill.
Some 15-20 per cent of Norwegian residual waste is sent to Sweden where it is incinerated. The emissions from the incineration of Norwegian waste abroad are not included in the official Norwegian emissions statistics.
No incentive to sort at source
The researchers believe we should look more critically at how we measure waste management to ensure a more precise picture of reality. We will benefit from measuring what we are interested in knowing, and we must take measurements over time so that we can track progress.
[caption id="attachment_84420" align="alignright" width="352"] The table shows Statistical research at Statistics Norway (SSB) figures on the treatment to which the various types of waste have been sent. Material recycling, biogas and compost together give a recycling percentage of 42. Source: Kim R. Matsson, NTNU.[/caption]
“Seeing headlines claiming that we are becoming ever better at sorting and recycling our waste, while in reality, it ends up being stored in Finland or incinerated in Germany, is damaging for the waste industry. And further, it is hardly likely to motivate people to sort their waste at home,” says the researcher.
While it is true that when waste is incinerated, we get energy back in return, this energy is not clean and it creates polluted air and ash. When we continue to help ourselves to materials and exploit nature in order to create products that we then incinerate, we remain in the linear economy that we want to move away from.
Requires a new waste policy
“This is a problem we have created and we must take responsibility for it. Sending waste to the other side of the planet and both thinking that we are solving a problem and reporting it as circular economy statistics is not good.”
The NTNU researchers propose legislative changes and new national strategies for the waste sector. Everything needs to be integrated; lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases and various measurements of sorting and recycling must be included. Only then can a comprehensive overview of how Norwegian waste policy really works be established.
Most importantly: avoid creating waste
The most important thing we can do to achieve a circular economy is to avoid waste from occurring in the first place. The message about consuming less must be given higher priority, and we need to be better at sorting our waste.
The NTNU analysis only focuses on household waste, which accounts for 25 per cent of the total in Norway. According to Mattson, if the statistics for household waste are unreliable, then the situation is absolutely terrible regarding all the other waste generated at workplaces and in trade and industry.
More transparency and stricter requirements
Mattson believes that Norway’s waste policy should impose stricter requirements on manufacturers to ensure that what they produce can actually be sorted at source.
Furthermore, the authorities must work to increase transparency on how waste is processed. The documentation requirements on the effectiveness of material recycling must be stricter. We need to know what the value chains look like, what the material losses are, and what the real value of recycled materials is.
“It is complicated, but I don’t think it is an impossible task,” says PhD candidate Kim Rainer Mattson.
Waste researcher at ground zero of his research field. Kim Rainer Mattson’s doctoral studies focus on what happens to our rubbish after it has been collected.
"Few recycling companies and industrial facilities are interested in sharing data from their facilities," says researcher Kim Rainer Mattson.
Credit
Photo: Sølvi W. Normannsen
The table shows figures from Statistics Norway on how much and which types of household waste each Norwegian created in 2023. Translations: Restavfall – trash; Papir –paper; Glass– glass; Plast– plastic; Metall – metal; EE-avfall– electronic waste; Matavfall– food waste; Trevirke – wood waste; Hageavfall – yard waste, Farlig avfall– hazardous waste; Byggeavfall – construction waste; Annet– other.
Source: Kim R. Mattson, NTNU.
What actually happens with Norway's waste? (IMAGE)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
What actually happens with Norway's waste?
Caption
The table shows Statistics Norway (SSB) figures on the treatment to which the various types of waste have been sent. Material recycling (materialgjenvinning), biogas (biogassproduksjon) and compost (kompostering) together sum up to 42 per cent recycling.
The table shows Statistics Norway (SSB) figures on the treatment to which the various types of waste have been sent. Material recycling (materialgjenvinning), biogas (biogassproduksjon) and compost (kompostering) together sum up to 42 per cent recycling.
No comments:
Post a Comment